Hacker News Reader

Comment by apalmer | Hacker News Reader

I think it's a result of MicroSoft shifting to the mindset that performance is a feature.

I have been a .Net developer for about 15 years and remember when it was a violation of terms of service to publish .Net performance measurements. Especially performance comparison against Java was something that would get you on Microsoft's bad side real quick.

So it's really I think the difference between performance being a secret, and it being on the front page and Microsoft throwing significant developer resources into it.

View on HN

Not sure how .NET holds up against Java but for the last decade or so its been common knowledge that .NET on Windows was way way faster than most of the interpreted web frameworks out there (PHP, Ruby, etc etc). Compiled vs interpreted, its pretty obvious. This 2013 post about Stackoverflow being served by just two IIS servers is fairly legendary: https://nickcraver.com/blog/2013/11/22/what-it-takes-to-run-...

My point being, I thought .NETs performance was pretty well regarded already fwiw.

edit: here you go, ranking of web frameworks: https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r19&hw=...

ASP.NET Core 3.1 holds up pretty well, only beaten by C++, Rust, and a Java/Kotlin Framework called Jooby

.NET Framework was slow. .NET Core is fast. Applicable to both, the runtime but specially the web frameworks.

And yes, beating PHP was never a thing. Beating node and Java containers is a thing.

Well, "slow" is relative, it was still blazingly fast compared to anything written in Django, Rails, etc.

Yeah, you are right. It is very relative.

They used to say 'cycles are free', because, for a long, long time, Moore's law would bail them out.

And, not forget, the cycles weren't theirs. Now that everyone and their dog is running webapps on Azure, suddenly cycles/request is a metric worth optimizing for, since they're billing per request but spending per cycle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com